Main Event IV: M1A1 vs. Schwerpunkt

[Schwerpunkt]

Ladies, Ratzki just gave me clearance to announce my true identity!

I, Schwerpunkt, am the notorious and somewhat maligned Mister X.

OK, where do I start? First I want to thank Ratzki for hosting the game. I never expected to be picked for this game, especially since he was in the middle of handily beating me in a scenario. I was not going to play, considering the impressive record M1 has over me. I had no desire to be trounced immediately in a game before the whole forum. But I figured “What the Hell?” It’s a game and why ever NOT accept a challenge? So I took up the glove, but it was a daunting task that lay before me.

I have never played M1. So I took the liberty of questioning some of his opponents. I originally thought some might consider that cheating or gamey, but what player of any sport/game, does not try to find intel on the opponent? As I later found out, M1 did the same or at least sought counsel. Good for him.

My intel revealed that he was a “Tread Head” - armor guy - and that he was very bold with it. At least one individual thought he was reckless with armor, but his record shows that it was boldness with armor, or he has cowed his opponents - either way, the right way to play. That player is one of the best, so for him to think reckless, means I have to consider it boldness…

With that in mind, I knew I had to preserve my armor and engage only when I found a distinct advantage. German armor in 1942 is not the best opponent against the Russians. In addition, we had to pick from Regulars, and I was limited in my choice of armor - no PzKw III with 50mm L/60’s, which would have been my first pick. You fellas saw my picks and why so no need to go further here. I will add though, like is previously stated, that I think this is an infantry game. All weapons are there to support the infantry. My opinion only, but that is how I play, for better or worse.

In short, I knew I could only use my numerically inferior armor very carefully, and only when the time was right.

So, he concentrated his armor and infantry and came hard at me. He crushed my entire right wing. It was painful to watch, but I knew I had to keep my armor back. Why? Because I knew that he had tanks to my left center (later found to be the equal of my number) and more than my number of tanks on my right. I also assumed that somewhere he had AT guns. So I was very under-gunned and did not want to push my 3 panzers in between his two groups of armor. That small rise in the middle is just that, a small rise. A few meters forward and he could pop rounds over at my panzer flanks - either way I committed. I decided early on, and it is clear by my comments during the game, that I meant to kill those 3 tanks in the center if/when that became possible.

My center and left “hiding” infantry groups? Why move them at this point and make casualties? Based on his armor purchase and his strong push to my right, I felt he had limited infantry fire elsewhere on the board. That plus his ½ squad rush to the far right meant to me that he was not serious about it. If I could knock out his 3 center tanks, I could use my armor on the right hand threat and move my infantry forward in the center without HE rounds flying their way.

Once I had eliminated the armor threat in the middle and moved my infantry forward, I then had the luxury of waiting (the lull that irritated everybody) for him to resort to his true form of bold tank moves. When he reached the edge of the woods on my right - I could engage them on a more equal footing. Numerous HMG’s could keep his infantry at bay in the open.

In the beginning I had not considered flame throwing tanks. When those opened up, I thought “This is it…! Embarrassed already!“ I was also shocked that he kept his armor and infantry so close and moved them forward very expertly, my intel was faulty or I was sabotaged by double agents. IF they had not been flamethrowers, I feel it would have taken him longer and inflicted far fewer casualties. An “if” that means nothing at this point.

I maintained my belief that the majority of his effort on my right was for two small flags only, one of which I had no intentions of going for anyway. So I had to accept casualties, and tried to pull the remains back (that did not work as planned as I waited too long).

I had a plan, stuck with it and it worked. I was not going to change it for an exciting charge that got everybody thrilled.

One last thing in response to the following:

“...I have seen nothing that Mr. X has really done to get a victory. He has inflicted some losses on the Russians, but basically allowed at least a company of his men to be cut to ribbons while keeping his tanks hiding out of LOS. I could understand letting his men die if he had no other options, but he was just playing it very safe because he didn't want to lose his armor. I am actually not sure why he bought the armor in the first place. From what I can tell from the DAR, he did not use them except in a purely defensive role. IMO, tanks are for attacking. I actually think that he is playing not to lose rather than to win. I bet that he will end the game with many of his units full of ammunition and hiding.”

If taking 3 of 3 large flags, and 1 of 3 small ones, AND destroying all of M1’s armor, while only losing one myself is doing nothing to get a victory, I have no problem with that! Perhaps I am alone in never having “bloodless“ battles. In any case, I did not attack with my armor, but I used it decisively. My armor allowed my infantry to take the majority of the flags. They served their purpose by causing him consternation (not showing them to him - per our unseen email conversation, that seemed to really be bothering him), stalling him (causing him to stop his advance beyond the woodline), inflicting casualties/suppressing his infantry, and finally by simply destroying his armor when they "were forced to dance to my tune" and cross the open ground in a flag rush. His well planned and coordinated attack was essentially for two small flags and therefore misdirected IMO. If he put all that punch along an avenue of approach along the other half, he may very well have crushed me. But that is another if...

Lastly, thanks to M1. He is a good guy and had some issues going on during this game - as did I. Both of us had deaths in the family and a busy work schedule. More than one time I came home after a 12-15 hour day and made a short and less then detailed move, but that is the way it is. He had the same work conditions.

I hope you all enjoyed the game for whatever value it had, and thank those that liked my battle - you are the best!

Mark,

OberKommando der Schwerpunkt